IN THE CASE OF: 
 
  BOARD DATE: 29 August 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230008437 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS: 
 
• adjustment of his active date of rank (ADOR) to the rank of major (MAJ) or promotion eligibility date (PED)/year group (YG) from 2006 to a later YG in connection with his date of acceptance in the Call to Duty (CAD) Program 

• removal of his DA Forms 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate (O4 – O5; CW3 – CW5) Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the periods 2 June 2018 through 1 June 2019 and 2 June 2019 through 1 June 2020 from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) 


 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
 
• DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) 

• U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Orders A-01-900046, 16 January 2019 

• Email (Applicant YG/Promotion Potential), 28 February 2019 

• OERs covering the periods – 


 
• 2 June 2018 through 1 June 2019 

• 2 June 2019 through 1 June 2020 

• 2 June 2020 through 1 June 2021 

• 2 June 2021 through 1 June 2022 

• 3 June 2022 through 18 September 2022 


 
• Military Personnel (MILPER) Message Number 21-125 (Eligibility Criteria for Officer Requesting to Defer Promotion Consideration (Opt Out) from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Army Competitive Category (ACC) Promotion Selection Board (PSB), 29 April 2021 

• Headquarters, 3d Special Forces (SF) Group (Airborne), Memorandum (Letter of Recommendation for (Applicant)), 19 May 2023 

• Headquarters, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Memorandum (Letter of Recommendation for (Applicant)), 23 May 2023 


• Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, Group Support Battalion, 3d SF Group (Airborne), Memorandum (Response to HRC Advisory Opinions – (Applicant)), 22 August 2023, with Enclosures – 


 
• Email (Plan B), 25 October 2018 

• Email (August SF Branch Update), 1 August 2022 


 
FACTS: 
 
1.  The applicant states: 
 
 a.  His mandatory retirement date (MRD) is 30 September 2023. 
 
 b.  He believes his ADOR/PED/YG was not appropriately determined in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), paragraph 4-1b, in his unique situation of transferring from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) to the Regular Army in the rank MAJ via the CAD Program on 1 February 2019. 
 
 c.  At the time of the CAD transfer, his branch manager stated he did not think HRC would change his YG from FY06 to a later YG. The HRC Promotion Branch would announce information in the near future through a U.S. Army MILPER message. The MILPER message would allow an officer to opt out of promotion for a few years without any negative impact and YGs would not matter. However, MILPER Message 21-125, 29 April 2021, did not mention such language, but instead stated specific criteria to opt out of promotion for which he did not qualify. He believes he was ill-advised and therefore unable to fairly compete for the FY22 AC LTC OPS PSB in the primary zone. Moreover, he was unable to complete key developmental assignments prior to his primary zone for promotion to LTC due to a tight timeline after the approved CAD transfer. An appropriate promotion zone of consideration would have allowed a suitable timeline for a Regular Army officer career development and achievement. 
 
 d.  Secondly, he requests removal or omission of his USAR OERs from his active duty promotion board file because he wholeheartedly feels they do not fully reflect his overall talents. Most importantly, removing or omitting those OERs separates his USAR and Regular Army officer time. At 2.5 years as a MAJ in the USAR prior to acceptance in the CAD program, it was a challenge to gain any positions of value, let alone key developmental positions, to showcase his talents at an active joint military command until he was able to transfer units. He was unable to transfer until over 1 year later after entering the Regular Army during an Army Assignment Interactive Module market off-cycle. This placed him at a disadvantage and he was unable to complete key developmental assignments. Additionally, he feels that both the duty positions and the evaluations he received during his time in the USAR did not properly reflect his potential 
for promotion. Bottom line, he felt subjected to "cannon fodder" for the Regular Army officers of the same rank/grade in seeking the highest evaluation ratings. 
 
 e.  Since his transfer to the Regular Army, he has shown that he is a competitively qualified officer with three straight "Most Qualified" evaluations in key developmental positions supported by strong enumeration and senior rater comments. Furthermore, his chain of command assigned him to key positions due to his demonstrated potential for the next higher rank. 
 
 f.  He believes he was ill-advised at acceptance in the CAD Program. Looking at statistics of promotion boards, he assumed he was not selected for promotion at his "in the zone" look because he had not completed any key developmental positions. With three out of five "Most Qualified" OERs for his "at zone" review, he thought he would be selected for promotion based on previous years' promotion board statistics, talks with his branch manager, and having completed his key developmental positions. He was highly advised not to write a letter to the promotion board president by his branch manager and brigade/group S-1 officer in charge prior to both of his boards as it would receive unnecessary attention. 
 
2.  The email (Plan B), 25 October 2018, shows the applicant in a conversation with the HRC SF MAJ Assignments Officer who stated HRC was going to keep the applicant at U.S. Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT) until the summer of 2019. 
 
3.  HRC Orders A-01-900046, 16 January 2019, ordered him to active duty to fulfill an active duty requirement in a voluntary indefinite status for a minimum of 36 months with a reporting date of 1 February 2019. 
 
4.  The email (Applicant YG/Promotion Potential), 27 February 2019, shows the applicant in discussion with HRC personnel. It further shows: 
 
 a.  The applicant inquired as to what YG he was assigned. If it was FY06, he wanted to know if it was possible to push it to FY07 to allow for more growth, key development time, and stronger OERs. He was worried about his condensed timeline if he remained part of the FY06 YG and that he might not be considered strong enough for promotion to LTC. 
 
 b.  In reply, the applicant was informed he was part of the FY06 YG. The HRC representative did not think they could change it currently; however, there were changes happening. The HRC representative thought that by the time the applicant was coming up for promotion he would be able to opt out of promotion consideration for a few years without any negative impact. Essentially, YGs would not matter. 
 
5.  His annual OER covering the period 2 June 2018 through 1 June 2019 shows he was evaluated for his position as a J32 Global Force Management Officer. The entry for his component is blank. It further shows: 
 
 a.  His rater rated his performance as "EXCELS" and commented: "[Applicant] is #1 out of 1 MAJs I rate. He is intelligent, dependable and takes initiative to identify and solve the most pressing problems. His contributions result in sourcing of critical SOCCENT force requirements, development and validation of JOC [Joint Operating Concept] Personnel Recover immediate action drills and implementation of the SOCCENT Commander's POTFF [Preservation of the Force and Family] initiative." 
 
 b.  His senior rater rated his potential compared with officers also senior rated by him as "HIGHLY QUALIFIED" and stated he was in the "top 20% of 25 joint O-4s I senior rate. Must promote to O-5 and select for CSL [centralized selection list] battalion command! Must select for SSC [Senior Service College] and resident SSC. Clearly a future O-6." 
 
6.  His annual OER covering the period 2 June 2019 through 1 June 2020 shows he was evaluated for his position as a Joint Special Operations Forces (SOF) Operations Officer. The entry for his component is blank. It further shows: 
 
 a.  His rater rated his performance as "EXCELS" and commented: "[Applicant] is #1 out of 1 MAJs I rate. He is intelligent, dependable and takes initiative to identify and solve the most pressing problems. His contributions result in sourcing of critical SOCCENT force requirements, development and validation of JOC Personnel Recover immediate action drills and implementation of the SOCCENT Commander's POTFF initiative." 
 
 b.  His senior rater rated his potential compared with officers also senior rated by him as "HIGHLY QUALIFIED" and commented: "[Applicant] is one of the top 3 O-4s I senior rate and in the top 5% of Joint O4's within the command. [Applicant] is a consummate team builder with indomitable will. Already selected for Company Command, send to resident ILE [Intermediate Level Education] ahead of peers and must promote to O-5. Exceptional potential." 
 
7.  MILPER Message Number 21-125, 29 April 2021, describes the specific eligibility criteria to allow officers to request to defer promotion consideration (Opt Out) for the FY22 ACC LTC PSB. This only applies to officers in the primary zone of consideration. 
 
8.  His annual OER covering the period 2 June 2020 through 1 June 2021 shows he was evaluated for his position as a Key Developmental Position-Company Commander. The entry for his component is blank. It further shows: 
 
 a.  His rater rated his performance as "PROFICIENT" and commented: "[Applicant] is my #1 SF Company Commander and is in the top 5% of all officers that I have worked with in over 21 years of service. [Applicant] delivered an absolutely exceptional performance by enabling the flawless execution of more than 25 courses and graduating over 350 students while successfully and skillfully navigating COVID-19 [coronavirus disease-2019] restrictions. Additionally, he expertly led DELTA CO [Company D] to win two challenging annual Commander's Cup events that evaluated individual warrior skills and company METL [Mission Essential Task List] tasks. Phenomenal leadership!" 
 
 b.  His senior rater rated his potential compared with officers also senior rated by him as "MOST QUALIFIED" and commented: "#3 of 20 highly talented Company Commanders in this ARSOF [Army Special Operations Forces] Training Group. [Applicant] excels at building and leading high performing teams. Must promote [Applicant] BZ [below the zone] to LTC and select for CSL Battalion Command. O6 Command potential." 
 
9.  His annual OER covering the period 2 June 2021 through 1 June 2022 shows he was evaluated for his position as a Battalion Executive Officer. The entry for his component is blank. It further shows: 
 
 a.  His rater rated his performance as "EXCELS" and commented: "#1 officer within Support Battalion; his performance ranks within the top 5% of majors that I have served with in 19 years of service. [Applicant] delivered an exceptional performance, ensuring the companies remained resourced and supported in a complex and dynamic environment. His efforts directly contributed to the success of the USAJFKSWCS's [U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School's] capability to seamlessly produce ARSOF Soldiers." 
 
 b.  His senior rater rated his potential compared with officers also senior rated by him as "MOST QUALIFIED" and commented: "[Applicant] is #1 of 5 Battalion XOs [Executive Officers] in this Group. [Applicant] is a must select for promotion to LTC and resident SSC. Outstanding potential, [Applicant] is a future Battalion Commander." 
 
10.  The email to all SF MAJs from the HRC SF MAJs Career Manager (August SF Branch Update), 1 August 2022, discussed the FY23 LTC PSB and stated: "BL [bottom line], DO NOT address a letter to the President of the Board unless it is absolutely necessary." 
 
11.  His complete-the-record OER covering the period 3 June 2022 through 18 September 2022 shows he was evaluated for his position as a SOF Operations Officer. The entry for his component is blank. It further shows: 
 
 a.  His rater rated his performance as "EXCELS" and commented: "[Applicant] is the #2 of 12 SF officers that I rate on Group Staff." 
 
 b.  His senior rater rated his potential compared with officers also senior rated by him as "MOST QUALIFIED" and commented: "[Applicant] is #1 of 7 SOF Operations Officers that I senior rate and a top 1% officer, regardless of branch. [Applicant] effortlessly built rapport outside of the chain of command while furthering the priorities of the Group, TSOC [Theatre Special Operations Command], and USASOC [U.S. Army Special Operations Command] Commanders. Promote immediately to LTC and select for first look SSC. [Applicant] is a future CSL-select battalion commander with clear potential to command as a COL [colonel]." 
 
12.  The Headquarters, 3d SF Group (Airborne), memorandum from COL J____ B____ (Letter of Recommendation for (Applicant)), 19 May 2023, states he highly recommended the applicant's reconsideration for promotion to LTC. The applicant possesses the character, competence, commitment, and critical leadership qualities that the Army needs now and into the future. The applicant is an exceptionally qualified officer. 
 
13.  The Headquarters, U.S. Army Special Operations Command memorandum from Major General P____ R____ (Letter of Recommendation for (Applicant)), 23 May 2023, states he fully endorsed the applicant's request for promotion reconsideration to LTC. The applicant possesses the talent along with the appropriate level of knowledge, skills, and behaviors the Army and Special Operations community needs today and to lead in the future. The applicant undeniably has the potential for the next level and should be considered appropriately. 
 
14.  The HRC memorandum (Advisory Opinion – (Applicant), AR20230008437), 26 July 2023, states the applicant's request for removal or omittance of his OER covering the periods 2 June 2018 through 1 June 2019 and 2 June 2019 through 1 June 2020 is not warranted. 
 
 a.  In accordance with Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), paragraph 4-7 (Policies), an evaluation report submitted and accepted for inclusion in the rated Soldier's AMHRR is presumed to be administratively correct, prepared by the proper rating officials, and represents the considered opinion and objective judgment of those rating officials at the time the reports were rendered. 
 
 b.  In order to have the evaluations removed from his records, the applicant would have to prove serious errors or irregularities in them through substantiated evidence. Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 4-7f, states an appeal that alleges an evaluation report is incorrect, inaccurate, or unjust without usable supporting evidence will not be 
considered. Neither of these reports are marked as being referred, nor do they contain any derogatory comments. 
 
 c.  In accordance with Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 4-4 (Purpose), if the applicant felt these evaluations did not capture an accurate picture of his performance and/or potential, he should have requested a Commander's Inquiry at the time the reports were rendered. The purpose of a Commander's Inquiry is to provide a greater degree of command involvement to prevent obvious injustices to the rated Soldier and correct these errors prior to the reports becoming a matter of permanent record. However, no Commander's Inquiry results were presented that may have shed light into his claims. 
 
15.  The HRC memorandum (Advisory Opinion for – (Applicant), MAJ, Date of Rank, AR20230008437), 15 August 2023, states that based on a review of the documents received, their current records, laws, regulations, policies, and the systems available to HRC Officer Promotions Branch, they find the applicant's request does not have merit. 
 
 a.  The applicant's latest DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects that he was in an active duty status from the time of his promotion with a date or rank of 13 June 2016 until 31 January 2019, 1 day before he was placed on the Active Duty List (ADL) on 1 February 2019. There was no break in service; therefore, he maintained his correct 13 June 2016 date of rank. Zones for promotion consideration or eligibility are determined by date of rank, not by YGs. 
 
 b.  They cannot speak toward any claims, comments, speculations, or assumptions as to why the applicant believes he was not selected for promotion. The applicant was considered as fully eligible for promotion under the criteria of the FY21 (below zone), FY22 (in zone), and FY23 (above zone) LTC ACC PSBs; however, non-selected. The exact reasons for his non-selection are unknown because statutory requirements set forth in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 618 (Action on Reports of Selection Board) and section 14104 (Nondisclosure of Board Proceedings), prevent disclosure of board proceedings to anyone outside of the promotion boards in question. 
 
 c.  PSBs allow officers the opportunity to submit correspondence to the president of the board and its members to address any issues they feel are important during consideration; failure to do so does not constitute material unfairness, a material error, nor is it an unlawful act. 
 
16.  The Army Review Boards Agency letter, 18 August 2023, informed the applicant of the two HRC advisory opinions and provided him a copy of each. The processing of his case was placed on hold for 14 days to allow him the opportunity to submit comments for consideration. 
 
17.  The Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, Group Support Battalion, 3d SF Group (Airborne), memorandum from the applicant (Response to HRC Advisory Opinions – (Applicant)), 22 August 2023, states that after a review of the HRC advisory opinions, he wholeheartedly believes HRC did not fully consider a holistic view or any empathy toward his unique situation. As many regulations as HRC addressed, there are still other facts pointing to support for his case for promotion reconsideration. He personally feels he was set up for failure and has dealt with unnecessary stress due to the continuous uphill battle to catch up with his peers. 
 
 a.  He was continually misguided by his branch managers and HRC representatives despite multiple requests for advice during the transfer process from the USAR to the Regular Army and beyond via the CAD Program. HRC ill-advised him on his transfer on four separate occasions. 
 
 b.  He was an Individual Mobilization Augmentee as a USAR MAJ assigned to SOCCENT. While serving on 365-day contingency operation  active duty for operational support orders each year, he was rated against the Regular Army officer population for evaluations which created a disadvantage. The reality of the situation is that a USAR officer, active or not, will not be selected for traditional key developmental positions at an Active Component command and subjected to senior rater profile "cannon fodder." Once he was able to transfer to Fort Liberty in 2020, over 1 year after his transfer to the Regular Army, he was assigned to key developmental positions, which allowed him to finally showcase his talents, achieving three "Most Qualified" evaluations in a row and high praises from many senior leaders. 
 
 c.  His date of rank for MAJ as a USAR officer is 13 June 2016. Unfortunately, this date became his ADOR which was just slightly over 2 months shy of not making the eligible promotion list for the FY21 LTC Promotion Board. Thus, a slight adjustment of his ADOR or PED would have shifted him to the FY22 LTC Promotion Board for the primary zone (in zone), allowing more time to progress as a Regular Army officer. According to Army Regulation 600-8-29, paragraph 4-1b, "Designation of ADOR and PED not anticipated by a provision of this regulation will be determined on an individual basis by the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS), G-1 or his or her designee." He believes his situation should have been determined on an individual basis. 
 
 d.  The current Army Officer Talent Management regulation, states that "While Reserve Component officers share the same mission as their Regular Army counterparts, the unique nature of the Reserve Component officer's role as a 'citizen Soldier' poses a challenge for professional development. Reserve Component officers are expected to follow Regular Army officer development patterns as closely as possible, except that Reserve Component officers sometimes have increased windows to complete mandatory educational requirements. To meet professional development objectives, Reserve Component officers may need to rotate among Troop Program Unit, 
the Individual Ready Reserve, and the Individual Mobilization Augmentee programs. These transfers are necessitated by geographical considerations and the need to provide as many officers as possible the opportunity to serve with troops in leadership and staff positions." He was not afforded this opportunity while serving as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee at SOCCENT from 2016 to 2020. 
 
 e.  He requests promotion consideration by a special selection board based, not necessarily on regulations, laws, and policies, but as a compassionate consideration of being misguided the entire time while serving  as a Regular Army officer. 
 
BOARD DISCUSSION: 
 
After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the applicant's military records, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant's contentions, his military records, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. 
 
 a.  As for adjustment of his DOR, the evidence shows the applicant was an active duty status from the time of his promotion with a date or rank of 13 June 2016 until 31 January 2019, 1 day before he was placed on the Active Duty List (ADL) on 1 February 2019. There was no break in service; therefore, he maintained his correct 13 June 2016 date of rank. Zones for promotion consideration or eligibility are determined by date of rank, not by YGs. Furthermore, the applicant was in fact considered for promotion under the criteria of the FY21 (below zone), FY22 (in zone), and FY23 (above zone) LTC promotion boards but he was non-selected. The specific reasons for his non-selection are unknown. Additionally, the Board determined that by law and regulation, there is no provision to allow for a special selection board based on compassionate reasons.  
 
 b.  As for removal of the contested OERs covering the periods 2 June 2018 through 1 June 2019 and 2 June 2019 through 1 June 2020, the Board determined the applicant’s request has no merit. By regulation, an evaluation report submitted and accepted for inclusion in the rated Soldier's AMHRR is presumed to be administratively correct, prepared by the proper rating officials, and represents the considered opinion and objective judgment of those rating officials at the time the reports were rendered. For an evaluation to be removed, the applicant would have to prove serious errors or irregularities in them through substantiated evidence. Also, by regulation, an appeal that alleges an evaluation report is incorrect, inaccurate, or unjust without usable supporting evidence will not be considered. Neither of the applicant’s contested OERs is a referred OER, nor do they contain any derogatory comments. 
 
  
BOARD VOTE: 
 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
 
: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
 
xx: xx: xx: DENY APPLICATION 
 
 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
 
The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 
 
  8/29/2023

I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. 
 
 
REFERENCES: 
 
1.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record; it is not an investigative body. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. The ABCMR members will direct or recommend changes in military records to correct the error or injustice, if persuaded that material error or injustice exists and that sufficient evidence exists in the record. 
 
2.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), 9 September 2020, prescribes the officer promotion function of military human resources support operations. 
 
 a.  Paragraph 4-1 (ADOR Responsibilities) states: 
 
  (1)  The ADOR is used to determine the eligibility of officers on the ADL for promotion. 
 
  (2)  The DCS, G-1, establishes the criteria used to determine the ADOR and PED. Designation of ADOR and PED not anticipated by a provision of this regulation will be determined on an individual basis by the DCS, G-1, or his or her designee. 
 
  (a)  Except as indicated below, HRC will determine ADOR and PED as prescribed in this regulation. The following documents must be submitted for those officers whose ADOR and PED will be determined by HRC: DA Form 1506 (Statement of Service – For Computation of Length of Service for Pay Purposes); DD Form 214; National Guard Bureau Form 23B (Army National Guard Retirement Points History Statement); DA Form 5016 (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points) provided by HRC; DA Form 71 (Oath of Office – Military Personnel); promotion orders; Regular Army appointment orders; active duty orders; letter orders on transfers between Reserve Control Groups or units; and any State promotion letters. Upon placement on the ADL, officers must show due diligence and comply with the instructions in their orders to request an ADOR determination. The request must be submitted no later than 24 months after being placed on the ADL unless the officer can explain excessive delay based upon exigent circumstances. 
 
  (b)  Brigade S-1s and/or military personnel divisions will determine the ADOR for all second lieutenants and warrant officer 1s. 
 
  (c)  The ADOR of officers not managed by HRC will be jointly determined by the Commanding General, HRC, and the Surgeon General; the Judge Advocate General; or the Chief of Chaplains, as appropriate. 
 
 b.  Chapter 6 (Special Selection Boards) states special selection boards may be convened under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 628, to consider or reconsider commissioned or warrant officers for promotion when HQDA determines that one or more of the following circumstances exist: 
 
  (1)  Administrative Error. An officer was not considered from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error. This would include officers who missed a regularly scheduled board while on the Temporary Disability Retired List and who have since been placed on the ADL. 
 
  (2)  Material Unfairness. 
 
  (a)  The action of the promotion board that considered the officer from in or above the promotion zone was contrary to law in a matter material to the division of the board or involved material error of fact or material administrative error. 
 
  (b)  The board that considered the officer from in or above the promotion zone did not have material information before it for its consideration. 
 
3.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), 4 November 2015, prescribed the policies for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. 
 
 a.  Paragraph 2-12 (The Rater) stated the rater will provide a copy of his or her support form, along with the senior rater's support form, to the rated Soldier at the beginning of the rating period. For officers in grades warrant officer 1 through COL, the DA Form 67-10A is mandatory for use throughout the rating period. 
 
 b.  Paragraph 2-14 (The Senior Rater) stated senior raters and reviewing officials will ensure support forms are provided to all rated Soldiers they senior rate at the beginning of and throughout the respective rating periods. 
 
 c.  Paragraph 3-4 (The Support Form Communication Process) stated the initial and follow-up counseling between the rater and the rated Soldier that is documented in the support forms assures a verified communication process throughout the rating period. 
 
  (1)  The support form communication process is characterized by initial and follow-up face-to-face counseling between the rater and the rated Soldier throughout the rating period. The initial face-to-face counseling assists in developing the elements of the rated Soldier's duty description, responsibilities, and performance objectives. The follow-up counseling enhances mission-related planning, assessment, and performance development. 
 
  (2)  Through the communication process, rated Soldiers are made aware of the specifics of their duties and may influence the decision on what is to be accomplished. Thus, the rated Soldier is better able to: 
 
• direct and develop their subordinates 

• plan for accomplishing the mission 

• gain valuable information about the organization 

• find better ways to accomplish the mission 


 
  (3)  Although the support or form is an official document covered by regulation, it will not become part of the official file used by selection boards or career managers. Failure to comply with any or all support form or counseling requirements will not constitute the sole grounds for appeal of an evaluation report. The senior rater will ensure that a completed support form is returned to the rated Soldier when the OER is forwarded to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA). 
 
 d.  Paragraph 3-36 (Modifications to Previously Submitted Evaluation Reports) addressed requests for modifications to both completed evaluation reports that are filed in a Soldier's AMHRR and evaluation reports that are being processed at HQDA prior to completion. 
 
  (1)  An evaluation report accepted by HQDA and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials who meet the minimum time and grade qualifications, and to represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation. 
 
  (2)  Requests for modifications to evaluation reports already posted to a Soldier's AMHRR require use of the Evaluation Report Redress Program. 
 
  (3)  Requests that a completed evaluation report filed in a Soldier's AMHRR file be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored if the request is based on the following: 
 
• statements from rating officials that they underestimated the rated Soldier 

• statements from rating officials that they did not intend to assess the rated Soldier as they did 

• requests that ratings be revised 

• statements from rating officials claiming administrative oversight or typographical error in checking blocks on forms for professional competence, performance, or potential 

• statements from rating officials claiming OERs were improperly sequenced to HQDA by the unit or organization 

• a subsequent statement from a rating official that he or she rendered an inaccurate evaluation of a rated Soldier's performance or potential in order to preserve higher ratings for other officers (for example, those in a zone for consideration for promotion, command, or school selection) 


 
  (4)  For evaluation reports that have been completed and filed in a Soldier's AMHRR, substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an evaluation report "THRU" date. Administrative appeals will be considered regardless of the period of the 
evaluation report; decisions will be made based on the regulation in effect at the time reports were rendered. 
 
  (5)  An exception is granted for evaluation reports when information that was unknown or unverified when the evaluation report was prepared is brought to light or verified and this information is so significant that it would have resulted in a different evaluation of the rated Soldier. The following actions will be accomplished in an effort to modify the evaluation report: 
 
  (a)  if the information would have resulted in a higher evaluation, the rated Soldier may appeal the evaluation report and rating officials may provide input to support this point; or 
 
  (b)  if the information would have resulted in a lower evaluation, rating officials may submit an addendum to be filed with the OER. 
 
 e.  Chapter 4 (Evaluation Report Redress Program) stated the program is both preventive and corrective, in that it is based upon principles structured to prevent and provide a remedy for alleged injustices or regulatory violations, as well as to correct them once they have occurred. 
 
  (1)  Paragraph 4-3 (Applicability) stated that upon receipt of a request for a Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry, the commander or commandant receiving the request will verify the status of the OER in question. If the evaluation has been submitted and received at HQDA for processing, but has not been filed in the Soldier's AMHRR, the commander or commandant will notify the Evaluations Appeals Office via email with a request to have the evaluation placed in a temporarily administrative holding status until completion of the inquiry. 
 
  (2)  Paragraph 4-8a (Timeliness) stated because evaluation reports are used for personnel management decisions, it is important to the Army and the rated Soldier that an erroneous report be corrected as soon as possible. As time passes, people forget and documents and key personnel are less available; consequently, preparation of a successful appeal becomes more difficult. 
 
  (3)  Paragraph 4-11 (Burden of Proof and Type of Evidence) stated the burden of proof rests with the applicant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an evaluation report, the applicant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that: 
 
  (a)  the presumption of regularity referred to in paragraphs 3-36a and 4-7a will not be applied to the report under consideration; or 
 
  (b)  action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. 
 
  (4)  Paragraph 4-11d stated for a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type, evidence will include statements from third parties, rating officials, or other documents from official sources. Third parties are persons other than the rated officer or rating officials who have knowledge of the applicant's performance during the rating period. Such statements are afforded more weight if they are from persons who served in positions allowing them a good opportunity to observe firsthand the applicant's performance as well as interactions with rating officials. Statements from rating officials are also acceptable if they relate to allegations of factual errors, erroneous perceptions, or claims of bias. To the extent practicable, such statements will include specific details of events or circumstances leading to inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or injustice at the time the evaluation report was rendered. The results of a Commander's or Commandant's Inquiry may provide support for an appeal request. 
 
4.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management), 7 April 2014, prescribed policies governing the Army Military Human Resource Records Management Program. The AMHRR includes, but is not limited to the Official Military Personnel File, finance-related documents, and non-service related documents deemed necessary to store by the Army. 
 
 a.  Paragraph 3-6 provided that once a document is properly filed in the AMHRR, the document will not be removed from the record unless directed by the ABCMR or other authorized agency. 
 
 b.  Appendix B (Documents Required for Filing in the Army Military Human Resource Record and/or Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System) contains the list of all documents approved by Department of the Army and required for filing in the AMHRR and/or interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System and shows the DA Form 67-10-2 is filed in the performance folder. 
 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//